Dialogue: Can Reason Prove the Universe Began? | Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn

[@WayneDrake-uk1gg]

Dang, Akin was lightning fast with apt puns ("classical [theism] Shazam", "Catholics should have mass" etc). I tip my hat

[@willw1753]

This is excellent. Thanks for uploading!

[@ZTAudio]

Akin and Trent at their best.

[@IveSeenSupernatural]

this is literally on my mind all the time......

[@fc-qr1cy]

i love this... vamos

[@theohill6372]

Intelligent guys❤

[@kesslerfreddy9192]

Amen🙏🙏🙏

[@icarlsw34]

The conversation finally drove Cy to drinking at the end. 😂

[@therealong]

*SUGGESTION:* One important "rule of thumb" to always keep in mind, is to also consider the current viewer's/listener's own reality's timeline. It must continually be clear to him/her, and thus being aware of, which "line of thought" is being presented in the course of the conversation (the timeline of the video), without having to jump unprepared, back and forth, from one line into another, and consequently lose track of the whole. (In that regard graphic maps might also be successfully used.) Each new moment/layer of reasoning, in order to be positively followed, requires the necessarily individual coordination's time, or the wavelength needed, to both assess and adjust itself into the other new presented one. This especially happens when the nature of the reasoning mainly diverges from the previous. A few seconds' interval during the transition between layers would also be highly preferable in order to allow the naturally rhythmic change of the thought's wavelength currently in use. If that abruptly happens, due to that this new moment gets disorderly disrupted, re-corrected and re-adjusted in the video's timeline, it will undoubtedly create an unnecessary interruption in the flow of all simultaneous timelines involved, creating turbulence, jitter and possibly in the end total chaos. In a video recording it always is possible to stop, rewind and re-listen, whereas in a live situation that opportunity will not be the case.

[@30Salmao]

Your way of suggesting is too confusing.

[@therealong]

@@30Salmao I could understand that if you hadn't even listened to the "Dialogue", but if you have, then neither yours or my comment would make much sense at all, but certainly not being "too confusing". Could you prove to me that you have listened to the video? _______________________________ You said: //Your way of suggesting is too confusing.//

[@peterv7258]

Here at 50:09. I would explain what the four-sided triangle like this. If we imagine someone passing this paper backward through time from in the infinite future, and just define the present as zero, the problem is that there is no point in the infinite future from which the paper passing can begin, because you never reach the end of it, and if you start passing from some randomly chosen point, the number would be whatever existed at that randomly chosen point, but if you want to not start passing the paper until you reach a terminus point, then the paper can never even be passed. You can't impose a rule into an infinite sequence without slicing off a finite chunk?

[@peterv7258]

That last thought may be complete dingo's kidneys.

[@therealong]

@@peterv7258 It seems that one always has to first determine things from a subjective point of view, and then testing them from an objective point of view which always is bound to the common given human reality. (?)

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

15:00 I don’t think that when WLC says something is “absurd” he merely means it is odd… I think he means something more like it is a logical absurdity (like a letter coming before A).

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Yes, he and Vilenkin were both misrepresented

[@therealong]

*QUESTION #2:* What does Jimmy say in his interjection between 18:18 and 18: 34? 🎤"_Assuming you have my ...._"? 🤔

[@EJ-gx9hl]

Assuming you have mass

[@therealong]

Thank you, @@EJ-gx9hl! It's hard when two talk simultaneously...😊

[@dennisperry8711]

I don't think we have an infinite future just because we go on forever. Anything that has a beginning point in time, no matter how long it goes into the future, that time can be measured. Infinite time cannot be measured.

[@johannesgh90]

"Anything that has a beginning point in time, no matter how long it goes into the future, that time can be measured." I have an old car. It's very, very old, but it's age is not immeasurable. Now, how do I measure how much longer it will last? I don't think my car will last forever, yet even with a finite period of time which is ongoing, I don't see how it can be measured. Measurements of lengths are between two points. So just "a beginning point in time" is an insufficient condition for even a theoretical measurement. Either it has a beginning and an end, and then you can measure the whole. Or you could measure the beginning until "now", which would be the things age at that time. I agree infinite time cannot be measured just like zero eggs cannot be weighed, but "forever" has exactly the same problem, so I don't see what distinction you're drawing there... If we imagine trying to measure the diameter of a balloon which is currently being inflated, and will keep being inflated forever, then we could of course take a reading of the measuring tape, divide by Pi and write down the current diameter, but we'd never be able to measure the final diameter, because the inflation doesn't finish, because that's what forever means: Without end; endless, or, in Latin: Infinitus.

[@therealong]

​@@johannesgh90 He is obviously thinking in our own 24-hr-time perspective into the future X. The beginning point is the exactly moment when the thing you are going to measure came into existence, has its origin. Whatever it is you are going to measure has different "length of existence" regardless of how far the future will stretch. The measurement in time will always determine past, present and future for us and we use seconds, minutes, hours and years. But we also use other kinds of measurements as for liquid, gas, pressure, matter, weight, space, temperature, energy, speed, power, volume, sound, waves, etc. etc. How long something will last would be related to its category. Given the previous example I'd guess it would be the same with our human life as for your car or any other artifact, as those that archeology studies. How long your car will last could only be roughly estimated but not exactly determined. It could even last more than you'll be alive or even fall apart earlier. Are you aware of anything that has lasted forever? But what does all of this have to do with the universe and eternity? 🤔

[@dennisperry8711]

@@johannesgh90 Forever implies endless time, while infinity refers to endless quantity or extent. I don't think your balloon will ever reach infinite size.

[@johannesgh90]

@@dennisperry8711 You'll have to elaborate if I'm misunderstanding you, because "Forever implies endless time, while infinity refers to endless quantity or extent." just sounds like: "Well, the Great Dane is a dog, while the Border Collie is a dog, so that's the difference." Yes, the word infinity can be applied to things other than time, but when it is used to describe a future without end it is being used to convey the same message as "forever". The balloon will never reach infinite size like the passage of time will never reach "forever", i.e. an endpoint of endless time. That was the point, because you said that a period of time which will last forever could still be measured, and I don't think it can because the length never stops increasing.

[@johannesgh90]

@@therealong I'm objecting to the second premise of the original comment, which I quoted at the top of my first reply. We are talking about an infinite future in the context of an eternal afterlife, and the reason that is relevant to the video above is that: In order to show that the world cannot always have existed, but had a beginning, people, such as William Lane Craig, famously, argue against the infinity of the past. I agree with Akin that one should only use arguments one understands and finds convincing, so here's my version of it: Something which does not take an end cannot pass, because passing is taking an end. But that's what past means. Therefore the past cannot have been infinite; infinite time can only be ongoing, it can not "have been" already. But then people will object that Christians believe in an eternal afterlife so obviously there is no problem with time and infinity. And in answer to that William Lane Craig says that the future is potential, while the past is actual, and that this is the difference that makes an infinite past impossible but an infinite future possible. Now, I love Aristotle, and Potency and Actuality may be accurate descriptions of reality, but to use those terms in a popular context today... How many get it? Maybe an easier way to say that is that the infinity of the future does not involve infinity being over, which the infinity of the past does. And, again: "without end" and "over" are in contradiction with each other.

[@christusenciaga]

No, his name should not be Shazam. Otherwise how can he tell others his name without exposing himself?

[@peterv7258]

Here at 25:14 I would like to suggest that God is not infinite, but rather eternal, and that those are not the same things. Infinite seems to suggest a numbering of things. Though an actual infinite exists, if we consider the set of all numbers both positive and negative. Though this argument raises the question of what we mean by universe. If the universe is this present configuration stretching back to the big bang, then the universe had a beginning. If, however, by universe we mean something like the set of all manifestations of a physical reality, and if we suppose that in an infinite universe, God has been endlessly creating, almost like the eternal cyclic idea that Hinduism has, and that each one is punctuated by some kind of pinching off into (a singularity, or whatever you want to call it) which separates each phase of creation, then one might say the universe is infinite, but I rather think that a view like that needs its own word to describe what all those creations are en masse. Another thought I have wondered, is that if God exists outside of time, and if time itself is a creature, then if, in some way that is impossible to conceive of, God's existence "began" a mere moment before creation was made, the beginning of time, from our perspective, having existed forever, or for a mere moment, before creation really has no easily identifiable difference.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

If the A-Theory of time is true, then the Kalam is false. If the B-Theory of time is true, then the Kalam is true.

[@therealong]

@carsonianthegreat4672 That would presuppose one knows in advance what all these theories stand for, since you've not given any example... Hence I'll go over to the C-theory which tells that there wouldn't be any problem and life will go on...

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

@@therealong A-Theory and B-Theory are established terms with known definitions. The A-Theory of Time views time as tensed and the future as not yet existing. The B-Theory of Time is tenseless and views past, present, and future as equally existent. You can look up these terms on Wikipedia.

[@therealong]

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Thanks for your response. To have some keywords clearly makes it much easier to understand the different aspects between them. I actually looked on Wikipedia earlier today and found also the author of the book, W. L. Craig, mentioned in the "Kalam" voice. I also found the 2-y.o.-old post with Akin and him, discussing on Pints of Aquinas, so I'm going to watch that later too. However I will always see past, present and future from our human being's point of view, therefore I feel we are all bound to our 24-hr-time conception and to our life span measured in solar years. Every new nanosecond is then a new step forward into what is our future, for us. Would you consider it otherwise? We can't escape that although we might fantasize on traveling back in time or into the future. Think, even traveling into outer space and reaching other planets it's not our atmosphere, our natural environment. It's not even healthy for our organism that will suffer from it, as testimonies have already confirmed. Let's rather aim at the promised afterlife. Theoretically I have also been pursuing an old neurological path that might build a bridge between physics and metaphysic. PS: In regard to the recent fashionable thoughts about Quantum fluctuations do you perhaps have any familiarity with? If you do, please see my post here where I added some few points I wondered about. Thanks.

[@antiscientism3665]

*In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. *

[@angelicashen]

Jimmy was arguing God did created the world “in the beginning”, that was the moment when the world was brought to existence. But since God is out of time, he could theoretically create the world with an infinite future as well as an infinite past. Then the creation would be kinda like a double-orienting timeline. At the moment of creation, one points to the future and one to the past, but the universe's existence still requires a God as its cause. Although i personally don't fancy the idea of an infinite past (as the evidence indicates), but i admit it's logically possible. That being said, in my opinion the infinite past still only can exist in theory, because it would cause an endless number of secondary causes going all the way back to the past, and the observation also supports the universe has a temporal beginning.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

@@angelicashenthat is not Jimmy’s position. He rejects the idea that God made the universe with an infinite past. What he is arguing is that we can only know that the past is finite through divine revelation.

[@angelicashen]

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Yes, I know his standing point. I agree with him that the infinite past only possibly exists in theory but the reality is not the case. Not only the revelation tells us so, the observation and metaphysics also prefer a finite past.

[@antiscientism3665]

@@angelicashen obviously both of them think the creation account of The Bible is fake and the pseudoscience of atheists are true 👎🏼

[@therealong]

After all what purpose would an infinite past have?

[@peterv7258]

Oh' ! Here is a really stupid question. After the resurrection, and judgement, and all of that stuff, could God/Jesus build a time machine and take the glorified people on excursions into the past before the resurrection?

[@therealong]

@peterv7258 How would you know if that isn't implied in the resurrection itself without the need of any time machine? 💬💬💬

[@peterv7258]

@MarchingOn according to Jimmy Akin that is not so, but we do in fact always remain in time. It is church doctrine. God alone enjoys eternity, which is outside of time.

[@DenverDias]

For the record, God can create a rock He can't lift: Let's say God created a universe like ours but populated it with only one rock (doesn't have to be large). The universe theoretically has gravitation but there is nothing that the rock is physically attracted to. There can be no such action as lifting that could be done unto this rock because without the presence of another object in this universe, you're not working against any gravitational attraction (which is essentially what lifting is). Therefore, yes, God can create a rock that He cannot Himself lift.

[@lifematterspodcast]

It is absurd on the philosophical ground that the definition of the terms contradict. If God is All-Powerful, then He cannot create a rock that He could not lift, since He is All powerful. Creating something that you could not exercise your power over would display that you are not all-powerful. It is a similar line of reasoning to say God cannot sin. God is perfect and therefore cannot miss the mark. Since God cannot sin, this goes to show that He did not create sin, because that would itself be a sin. It also shows that sin is not a power, but rather an imperfection. Similarly, creating a rock for which God Himself could not lift is logically absurd because it is not a power to create something you don’t have control over

[@therealong]

@DenverDias The argument doesn't hold water because it's based on the "lifting" action only. Would there be any other actions God could do with such a mysterious rock?

[@therealong]

@@lifematterspodcast A little uncertain there on SIN never really being a POWER but only an IMPERFECTION. Seen from God's creation perspective it might work, but not seen from the human's point of view. SIN generally follows a temptation. The object of temptation doesn't necessarily need to be an imperfection. SIN per se doesn't concretely exist in reality, being immaterial, and thus can be compared to any conscious or an unconscious DESIRE. This DESIRE gives rise to a concrete ACTION which in turn becomes SIN when it's allowed to make an improper use of the object of temptation. Consequently both temptation and sin's potential desire interact with human's free will and this indirectly generates a POWER that leads the temptation to be fulfilled and finally becoming a concrete SIN. This might explain why doing something that is considered a SIN from God's point of view may not be considered as such from others' points of view that don't consider the same ACTION as SIN. Ergo SIN is definitely not an imperfection, but the breaking of God's perfection and various degrees of natural laws. (PS: It could certainly be further elaborated and compressed.)

[@lifematterspodcast]

@@therealong what I am saying is that since is the deprivation of goodness. God is good and perfect and created the world as such. It is only humans that deprive the world of goodness by messing up. By power I imply an act of goodness, but sin is not an act of goodness but rather a deprivation of goodness

[@therealong]

@@lifematterspodcast Sure, you said all of that now, but not earlier, as you put up the analogy. You formulated it as SIN was an imperfection and had no power. That God didn't create sin otherwise He would have sinned. If I put up the analogy with light vs darkness, neither darkness was created by God since he is LIGHT, and light is the absence of darkness. But since it's not an analogy that can fit every reasoning, it follows here too that darkness is neither an imperfection nor a SIN. Didn't you find my comment useful?

[@rick984]

I've never heard of such a stupid question in all my life.